In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Stephen

PS Arny's not so keen on reproducing 'inaudible' supersonic content. Go
figure...

Stephen wrote:


In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of
his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Stephen

PS Arny's not so keen on reproducing 'inaudible' supersonic content. Go
figure...








John Cage - " 4'33:".


Have you had a chance to compare analogue and digital versions of this piece?
Or playback on a SS vs. tubed set of equipment (or perhaps a combination of the
two)?






Bruce J. Richman

In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

Stephen wrote:

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

PS Arny's not so keen on reproducing 'inaudible' supersonic content. Go
figure...

John Cage - " 4'33:".

Hmm. Possible! Hint: I'm thinking of a string quartet.

Have you had a chance to compare analogue and digital versions of this piece?
Or playback on a SS vs. tubed set of equipment (or perhaps a combination of
the two)?

I'm listening to a live performance of it now.

Stephen

Arny Krueger wrote:

(4) No sound quality improvement over commodity wire.

OTOH, many job sites literally throw out insane amounts of the stuff,
so it can be obtained cheaper than common wire.

Still, 500ft of 12 gauge wire isn't $25.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:01:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Jacob Kramer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been
at a live performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about
these pieces of music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll
on what was left of his brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Do you think that there was any sound at 6 Hz?

I could only guess, but my point was that vibrations that you can't
hear but can feel can be a part of the performance. It was an outdoor
concert at the Esplanade by the way.


--

Jacob Kramer

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Any piece where you have the musicians smashing stuff on stage might
have this effect.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Hrm in fact that earth-shaking or gut-wrenching quality of a rock
concert seems to be what's most missing in recorded music I've heard
thus far, especially in a small venue, although it's true even for
stadium concerts. The music itself also doesn't have that pristine
quality when it's live, even if the recording produces distortion etc.
Maybe it's just the systems I've heard though.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

Hrm I should add that it was Independence Day, and frankly pretty
stirring.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:01:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Jacob Kramer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been
at a live performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about
these pieces of music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll
on what was left of his brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Do you think that there was any sound at 6 Hz?

I could only guess, but my point was that vibrations that you can't
hear but can feel can be a part of the performance. It was an outdoor
concert at the Esplanade by the way.

Then we agree on the basics. My point is that vibrations that can't be heard
can be part of the performance.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

(4) No sound quality improvement over commodity wire.

OTOH, many job sites literally throw out insane amounts of the stuff,
so it can be obtained cheaper than common wire.

I have no objections to people connecting speakers with surplus wire.

Still, 500ft of 12 gauge wire isn't $25.

It's more like $125.

Arny said:

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart
enough to realize how?

I've got enough experience with you Phillips, to realize

In other words, no, you aren't smart enough to realize how. Thanks.

Boon

Arny said:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Mr. Middius said:


Marc Phillips said:


what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.


Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Well, "certified" is usually so lienient with any limit
that you can safely double it if there's no outside factors
or interference.

That explains why it worked for Phillips on a good day.

But it does his clients no favors on bad days, which do happen.

I'm sorry, but I'm a guy who has to make these things work on a daily basis.
While I'm out in the field making things happen, you're living behind your
keyboard, fantasizing about it all. If you knew anything about what I'm
talking about, there's a couple of questions you should have asked first before
you said what you did. Since you didn't, we can all safely assume that you
don't know what you're talking about...again.

Boon

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Lionel said:

Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

That includes 10 meters for patch cords on either side. The initial
cable run should be 90 or less.

Note that Phillips can't agree with someone when they are right, but has to
try change the ground rules for the discussion in a vain attempt to remain
dominant.

Wow. You REALLY don't know anything about all this do you? You do get points
for mentioning coax to George, though...that was actually correct.

Boon

Arny said:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Lionel said:


Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:


or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?


- 100 meters for ethernet use. )


That includes 10 meters for patch cords on either side. The initial
cable run should be 90 or less.


Note that Phillips can't agree with someone when they are right, but
has to try change the ground rules for the discussion in a vain
attempt to remain dominant.

I note...
Note that I have done my best to give him a good advice for use of the
remaining 10 meters. )

I think you aimed your comment right at Phillips' mental level. It was like
something he'd say himself.

;-)

No. It was too dumb for me to say. It was, although, aimed right at you. And
the emoticon confirms this.

LOL!

Boon

Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Obviously you didn't read that carefully enough.

Obviously Phillips, you have nothing sensible, funny or interesting to say.

Then pretend I don't exist. Stop making utterly moronic responses to my posts.
It'll save us both time.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Obviously you didn't read that carefully enough.

Obviously Phillips, you have nothing sensible, funny or interesting to
say.

Then pretend I don't exist.

I'll leave acting on fantasies to you.

Stop making utterly moronic responses to my posts.

Never happened, proven liar.

It'll save us both time.

Your've got way too much time to waste.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Mr. Middius said:


Marc Phillips said:


what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.


Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Well, "certified" is usually so lienient with any limit
that you can safely double it if there's no outside factors
or interference.

That explains why it worked for Phillips on a good day.

But it does his clients no favors on bad days, which do happen.

I'm sorry, but I'm a guy who has to make these things work on a daily
basis.

True you are sorry, and true your crappy techniques have you making
call-backs way too often.

While I'm out in the field making things happen, you're living behind your
keyboard, fantasizing about it all.

Delusions of omniscience notes.

If you knew anything about what I'm
talking about, there's a couple of questions you should have asked first
before
you said what you did.

BS artists say things like that.

Since you didn't, we can all safely assume that you
don't know what you're talking about...again.

The only safe assumption is that you're delusional and live in a fantasy
world, Phillips.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Lionel said:

Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

That includes 10 meters for patch cords on either side. The initial
cable run should be 90 or less.

Note that Phillips can't agree with someone when they are right, but has
to
try change the ground rules for the discussion in a vain attempt to
remain
dominant.

Wow. You REALLY don't know anything about all this do you?

Which "this" would you be fantasizing about, Phillips? The proxmiate one
relates to your sleazy debating-trade deceptions.

You do get points for mentioning coax to George, though...that was
actually correct.

You didn't, so that means that you're doing a good job of following my
technical lead.

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart
enough to realize how?

I've got enough experience with you Phillips, to realize

In other words, no, you aren't smart enough to realize how. Thanks.

In other words you're trying to deceive people by deleting out the parts of
my post that are over your head, Phillips.

Arny said:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger - - samedi 17 Avril
2004 02:59 wrote:

Lionel wrote:
Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

Here's the post that Phillips is whining about:




http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0095%40mb-cu.a
ol.com

Notice that in this post we were talking about using CAT-5 for
speaker cable. This is typical of how Marc Phillips convinces
himself that he wins debates with me. One sick puppy.

I know the tests performed for the ethernet use only
I don't know about audio electrical signal, so my answer will be :
- as short as possible. ;-)

The whole thread is full of posts from Phillips that demonstrate how shallow
he is. I mean if he thinks a good idea to hook up his supposedly
perfectionistic speakers with 24 gauge wire that's his privilege, but...

Actually, I hook up my speakers with solid-core silver cable. I think that's a
good idea. I don't think I'd personally use Cat 5 for speaker cables, but a
lot of people do.

Norm questioned whether or not it's a good idea. He wondered this while
listening to a system wired with Cat 5. If it's working, why wouldn't it be a
good idea?

Truth is, lots of people use Cat 5 cable as speaker wire, and claim excellent
results. It may be a lot of work, but it's a lot easier to shotgun several
runs together than it is to construct most high-end cabling out there. Just
about anyone can do it on their living room floor with nothing more than a pair
of electrician's snips. If you need a jacket for aesthetic reasons you can buy
the shrink-wrap type. Then you'll need a blow dryer and some electrician's
tape.

I bet I could make up a 10 foot pair in a half-hour or less. My cost would be
zero, since I throw away more Cat 5 cable in a day than someone like Arny uses
in his entire life (actually, I recycle it). Why wouldn't someone, especially
someone as cheap as Norm, give it as try?


BTW some audio freaks use to built this kind of thing :


http://www.ifrance.com/ptsoundlab/se.../cablecat5.htm

or

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/triple_t_e.html

or

http://domainedupossible.free.fr/pagemus/Enceintes 2.5/2.5 -3.htm

Imagination has no limits....

The first time I heard of someone using CAT-5 for speaker cable was on RAO,
writer being Jon Rich:

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/

AFAIK he first posted this in or before 1997, which I believe predates the
existence of some the web sites you mentioned, and by quite a bit. Here's a
sample Risch post:


http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...lm=871012535.2
6618%40dejanews.com

IOW, it's old news.

If you actually go this route you find out that:

(1) Splicing 4 pieces of CAT5 in parallel is work. It's a lot easier to just
cut a some common 12 gauge cable off a roll in the hardware store.

(2) If you try to make it look neat with shrink wrap you use up a lot of
non-cheap shrink wrap, and end up with a pretty stiff, hard-to-manage cable.

(3) If you measure CAT-5 speaker cable's electrical properties, they are not
exceptional.

(4) No sound quality improvement over commodity wire.

One through three are pretty much true. Four, however, is a guess. If someone
does hear a difference, then points one through three are moot.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger - - samedi 17 Avril
2004 02:59 wrote:

Lionel wrote:
Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

Here's the post that Phillips is whining about:




http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0095%40mb-cu.a
ol.com

Notice that in this post we were talking about using CAT-5 for
speaker cable. This is typical of how Marc Phillips convinces
himself that he wins debates with me. One sick puppy.

I know the tests performed for the ethernet use only
I don't know about audio electrical signal, so my answer will be :
- as short as possible. ;-)

The whole thread is full of posts from Phillips that demonstrate how
shallow
he is. I mean if he thinks a good idea to hook up his supposedly
perfectionistic speakers with 24 gauge wire that's his privilege, but...

Actually, I hook up my speakers with solid-core silver cable.

Fantasies are very cheap on Usenet.

I think that's a good idea.

Phillips, I did call you shallow, didn't I? Thanks for supporting my
claim, even though your solid silver cable is probably a fantasy.

I don't think I'd personally use Cat 5 for speaker cables, but a
lot of people do.

I'm sure they do, and if they use it properly, I've got no problems with it.

Norm questioned whether or not it's a good idea. He wondered this while
listening to a system wired with Cat 5. If it's working, why wouldn't it
be a
good idea?

Depends on what you call "working". But Norm's question wasn't the point
Phillips, the point was that you deceptively tried to change the topic to
the use of Cat-5 for computer networking.

Truth is, lots of people use Cat 5 cable as speaker wire, and claim
excellent
results. It may be a lot of work, but it's a lot easier to shotgun
several
runs together than it is to construct most high-end cabling out there.
Just
about anyone can do it on their living room floor with nothing more than a
pair
of electrician's snips. If you need a jacket for aesthetic reasons you
can buy
the shrink-wrap type. Then you'll need a blow dryer and some
electrician's
tape.

Non-issue.

I bet I could make up a 10 foot pair in a half-hour or less. My cost
would be
zero, since I throw away more Cat 5 cable in a day than someone like Arny
uses
in his entire life (actually, I recycle it). Why wouldn't someone,
especially
someone as cheap as Norm, give it as try?

Non-issue.

BTW some audio freaks use to built this kind of thing :


http://www.ifrance.com/ptsoundlab/se...5/cablecat5.ht
m

or

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/triple_t_e.html

or

http://domainedupossible.free.fr/pagemus/Enceintes 2.5/2.5 -3.htm

Imagination has no limits....

The first time I heard of someone using CAT-5 for speaker cable was on
RAO,
writer being Jon Rich:

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/

AFAIK he first posted this in or before 1997, which I believe predates
the
existence of some the web sites you mentioned, and by quite a bit.
Here's a
sample Risch post:


http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...lm=871012535.2
6618%40dejanews.com

IOW, it's old news.

If you actually go this route you find out that:

(1) Splicing 4 pieces of CAT5 in parallel is work. It's a lot easier to
just
cut a some common 12 gauge cable off a roll in the hardware store.

(2) If you try to make it look neat with shrink wrap you use up a lot of
non-cheap shrink wrap, and end up with a pretty stiff, hard-to-manage
cable.

(3) If you measure CAT-5 speaker cable's electrical properties, they are
not
exceptional.

(4) No sound quality improvement over commodity wire.

One through three are pretty much true. Four, however, is a guess. If
someone
does hear a difference, then points one through three are moot.

Lot's of people have said that they heard a difference, but was it real or
was it just a placebo effect? Better sound or wish fulfillment? Improved
technology or hype? People have said that they've heard the benefits of
lots of things including green pens, and demagnetizing CDs. People will say
the darnedest things, particularly proven liars like you, Phillips.

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of
his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

Should be, "most famous pieces".

Hrm I should add that it was Independence Day, and frankly pretty
stirring.

The show that PBS broadcasts every year with the Pops? Looks like fun
for those attending.

Stephen

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of
his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Any piece where you have the musicians smashing stuff on stage might
have this effect.

This one doesn't have a stage.

Stephen

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger - - samedi 17 Avril
2004 02:59 wrote:

Lionel wrote:
Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

Here's the post that Phillips is whining about:




http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20...0095%40mb-cu.a
ol.com

Notice that in this post we were talking about using CAT-5 for
speaker cable. This is typical of how Marc Phillips convinces
himself that he wins debates with me. One sick puppy.

I know the tests performed for the ethernet use only
I don't know about audio electrical signal, so my answer will be :
- as short as possible. ;-)

The whole thread is full of posts from Phillips that demonstrate how
shallow
he is. I mean if he thinks a good idea to hook up his supposedly
perfectionistic speakers with 24 gauge wire that's his privilege, but...

Actually, I hook up my speakers with solid-core silver cable.

Fantasies are very cheap on Usenet.

I think that's a good idea.

Phillips, I did call you shallow, didn't I? Thanks for supporting my
claim, even though your solid silver cable is probably a fantasy.

I don't think I'd personally use Cat 5 for speaker cables, but a
lot of people do.

I'm sure they do, and if they use it properly, I've got no problems with it.

Norm questioned whether or not it's a good idea. He wondered this while
listening to a system wired with Cat 5. If it's working, why wouldn't it
be a
good idea?

Depends on what you call "working". But Norm's question wasn't the point
Phillips, the point was that you deceptively tried to change the topic to
the use of Cat-5 for computer networking.

Truth is, lots of people use Cat 5 cable as speaker wire, and claim
excellent
results. It may be a lot of work, but it's a lot easier to shotgun
several
runs together than it is to construct most high-end cabling out there.
Just
about anyone can do it on their living room floor with nothing more than a
pair
of electrician's snips. If you need a jacket for aesthetic reasons you
can buy
the shrink-wrap type. Then you'll need a blow dryer and some
electrician's
tape.

Non-issue.

I bet I could make up a 10 foot pair in a half-hour or less. My cost
would be
zero, since I throw away more Cat 5 cable in a day than someone like Arny
uses
in his entire life (actually, I recycle it). Why wouldn't someone,
especially
someone as cheap as Norm, give it as try?

Non-issue.

BTW some audio freaks use to built this kind of thing :


http://www.ifrance.com/ptsoundlab/se...5/cablecat5.ht
m

or

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/triple_t_e.html

or

http://domainedupossible.free.fr/pagemus/Enceintes 2.5/2.5 -3.htm

Imagination has no limits....

The first time I heard of someone using CAT-5 for speaker cable was on
RAO,
writer being Jon Rich:

http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/

AFAIK he first posted this in or before 1997, which I believe predates
the
existence of some the web sites you mentioned, and by quite a bit.
Here's a
sample Risch post:


http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...lm=871012535.2
6618%40dejanews.com

IOW, it's old news.

If you actually go this route you find out that:

(1) Splicing 4 pieces of CAT5 in parallel is work. It's a lot easier to
just
cut a some common 12 gauge cable off a roll in the hardware store.

(2) If you try to make it look neat with shrink wrap you use up a lot of
non-cheap shrink wrap, and end up with a pretty stiff, hard-to-manage
cable.

(3) If you measure CAT-5 speaker cable's electrical properties, they are
not
exceptional.

(4) No sound quality improvement over commodity wire.

One through three are pretty much true. Four, however, is a guess. If
someone
does hear a difference, then points one through three are moot.

Lot's of people have said that they heard a difference, but was it real or
was it just a placebo effect? Better sound or wish fulfillment? Improved
technology or hype? People have said that they've heard the benefits of
lots of things including green pens, and demagnetizing CDs. People will say
the darnedest things, particularly proven liars like you, Phillips.

Gee, your entire response seems to be based upon your fantasies. Fantasies, I
guess, of a world where laymen like me aren't more knowledgeable about audio
than Internet geek know-it-alls like you.

Next time come up with a fact or two to prove me wrong. You look like a sore
loser here.

Boon

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Obviously you didn't read that carefully enough.

Obviously Phillips, you have nothing sensible, funny or interesting to
say.

Then pretend I don't exist.

I'll leave acting on fantasies to you.

Stop making utterly moronic responses to my posts.

Never happened, proven liar.

It'll save us both time.

Your've got way too much time to waste.

Oh, I forgot. You have nothing but time, don't you.

LOL!

Boon

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Lionel said:

Marc Phillips - -
samedi 17 Avril 2004 01:37 wrote:

or what the length limts are on Cat 5
cable?

- 100 meters for ethernet use. )

That includes 10 meters for patch cords on either side. The initial
cable run should be 90 or less.

Note that Phillips can't agree with someone when they are right, but has
to
try change the ground rules for the discussion in a vain attempt to
remain
dominant.

Wow. You REALLY don't know anything about all this do you?

Which "this" would you be fantasizing about, Phillips? The proxmiate one
relates to your sleazy debating-trade deceptions.

You do get points for mentioning coax to George, though...that was
actually correct.

You didn't, so that means that you're doing a good job of following my
technical lead.

Actually, I just didn't want to parrot you, since you responded first. But
since I've runs hundreds of miles of coax for satellite transmissions in the
last few years, and you've probably just plugged a few feet into your VCR
during the same time, why shouldn't I let you fantasize once in a while?

Boon

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Mr. Middius said:


Marc Phillips said:


what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device still
worked.


Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Well, "certified" is usually so lienient with any limit
that you can safely double it if there's no outside factors
or interference.

That explains why it worked for Phillips on a good day.

But it does his clients no favors on bad days, which do happen.

I'm sorry, but I'm a guy who has to make these things work on a daily
basis.

True you are sorry, and true your crappy techniques have you making
call-backs way too often.

That would be a fantasy of yours.

Why didn't you ask the proper follow-up questions?

While I'm out in the field making things happen, you're living behind your
keyboard, fantasizing about it all.

Delusions of omniscience notes.

Krooglish!


If you knew anything about what I'm
talking about, there's a couple of questions you should have asked first
before
you said what you did.

BS artists say things like that.

No. BS artists assume things without asking the proper follow-up questions.


Since you didn't, we can all safely assume that you
don't know what you're talking about...again.

The only safe assumption is that you're delusional and live in a fantasy
world, Phillips.

Nice projection there. Right now you're upset because you know you ****ed up.
Your psychosis, however, doesn't offer you the foresight to walk away without
being further humiliated.

Boon

Arny asked:




"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Wow, you just totally conceded the argument to Scott. Are you smart
enough to realize how?

I've got enough experience with you Phillips, to realize

In other words, no, you aren't smart enough to realize how. Thanks.

In other words you're trying to deceive people by deleting out the parts of
my post that are over your head, Phillips.

Not at all. I asked you a simple yes or no question, and you started off with
a personal attack. It was clear right off the bat that you were conceding the
argument to me, just like you conceded your argument with Scott yesterday. If
you can't answer the question, Arny, it's because you don't know the answer.
So why should I have to reply to all the superfluous bull**** that follows?

Boon

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...


I know of a musical work, one that doesn't use artillery, that may have
infrasonic content. Who can guess?

Lots of stuff. Get a musician tapping his foot on a wooden floor with the
right geometry and...

This brings to mind a recording that we were trying to diagnose on one of
the recording groups.

It was a recording of some Easeter music with some mystery transients.
Spectral analysis of the transients shows that their highest amplitude is
below 20 Hz . I don't know how high the total amplitude is, because my
spectrum analysis only goes down to 6 Hz. It was still rising at that point.

PS Arny's not so keen on reproducing 'inaudible' supersonic content. Go
figure...

The difference is that the inaudible supersonic content isn't reliably
perceptible. Of course I've pointed this out many times, but why let a good
troll go by, eh?

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Arny said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

what the length limts are on Cat 5 cable?

I would like to know this one. I just put a cable in my living
room
and the cable company said it has to be Cat 6 because it's more
than 50 ft.

Bull****. It can be certified Cat 5 up to 90 meters. I had to
install a run of Cat 5 once that was 768 feet, and the device
still
worked.

Exactly the sort "engineering" I'd expect from you Phillips.

Obviously you didn't read that carefully enough.

Obviously Phillips, you have nothing sensible, funny or interesting to
say.

Then pretend I don't exist.

I'll leave acting on fantasies to you.

Stop making utterly moronic responses to my posts.

Never happened, proven liar.

It'll save us both time.

Your've got way too much time to waste.

Oh, I forgot. You have nothing but time, don't you.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


Because you are simple minded and you have an agenda that has nothing
to do with the enjoyment of music.

Since you are so knowledgeable about my agenda, why not share with the rest
of RAO what it is.


It's a rather stale subject. Most of the regulars knew your agenda before I
ever got here. Don't you get tired of being called on it?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:


Because you are simple minded and you have an agenda that has nothing
to do with the enjoyment of music.

Since you are so knowledgeable about my agenda, why not share with the
rest
of RAO what it is.


It's a rather stale subject. Most of the regulars knew your agenda before
I
ever got here. Don't you get tired of being called on it?

Delusions of omniscience noted.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/16/2004 1:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Lionel wrote:
S888Wheel - -
vendredi 16 Avril 2004 17:18 wrote:

You remain an idiot.

S888Wheel .... contradicted at the same time, for
the same subject on RAHE and he comes here on RAO to insult and to
purge his frustration and hatred.

As the saying goes, the best revenge is living well. S888wheel has
fimly committed himself to the idea that only idiots have audio
systems with response below 20 Hz.


It looks like Arny cant count from 6 to 20. He sees nothing
inbetween.

I see nothing inbetween for sure. Let's see if you can figure out
why, S888wheel.

Asked and answered

I see no answer.

Is gooogle lying to you again?



But let's get back on topic S888wheel.

You wrote:

"The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would be
utterly useless."

Why did you have to guess whether or not a 6 Hz tone is a tone?

I wasn't guessing. It was a stylized way of alluding to the fact that while it
is a tone it is inaudible. We generally refer to audible tones when talking
about sound.



Why do you think that reproducing a 6 Hz tone is unconditionally useless?


First of all, I never said unconditionally. The conditions of my claim have
always been with the presumption that we are talking about highend audio and
the playback of music. With that said here are the reasons I find 6hz
reproduction both useless and undesirable.
1. It is inaudible
2. There is no *music* that contains 6hz tones
3. If there is any such signal present in the source it is almost certainly:
A. inadvertant and not likely to be intended or desired by the artists or
engineers,
B. grossly distorted to the point of not being representative of the original
event,
C. likely to wreck havoc with the equipment and the listening room (IOW it is
likely to do lots of harm to the enjoyment of the playback if it is perceptable
at all)
D. and, if nothing else, it is likely to be most unpleasant if it is
perceptable at all.
To some up. There is nothing to be gained from it and a lot to be lost from it
in the attempt to reproduce music in playback.

Now it might be useful as..
1. a very powerful laxitive
2. a weapon
3. a cheap gimmic in a movie
But I have no desire to experience any of the above

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Are you saying that audio systems should never reproduce sounds that
are infrasonic?

No.

A 6 Hz tone is well-known to be infrasonic.

Again we run into this counting problem of yours. 19 hz, 18 hz, 17 hz, 16 hz,
15 hz, 14 hz, 13 hz, 12 hz, 11 hz, 10 hz, 9 hz, 7 hz, are also well known to be
infra sonic.

You said:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would be
utterly useless. It

Why is reproducing a 6 Hz tone always useless?



You can read my answer on a previous post.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 2:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Lionel wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Sockpuppet wheel has said, and I quote, that it is "useless" to
reproduce them.

S888Wheel isn't interested in music.

Seems like.

cough::: Fold es Eg.



He is just looking for new "friends" to show them his more and
more expensive audio-system.

Bingo!

He's about male dominance, not about enjoying music.

Do your bitter fantasies help ease your pain?

What pain might that be?

The pain of your miserable existance.

How do you know that I have a miearable existence?

By the content of so many of your posts.


How do you know that it causes me pain?

Misery is the result of some sort of pain.



You're the one that has legally certified that you
are aggrieved.

Misery loves company.

My lack of misery causes you even more pain, S888wheel. Hence your
projection-fantasies.

Stop plagiarizing me.


Your occupation must cause you misery S888wheel, as you won't reveal when
asked like a normal person would.

I get great pleasure from my occupation. And when normal people ask me I
happily tell them what it is.

Why aren't you proud enough of your
occupation to talk about it in public?

I've said beofre but I guess it bears saying again. I don't talk about my
occupation on RAO because it is not audio related and I think it is vulgar to
get on a soap box and brag about it when it has nothing to do with the subject
of audio. Most people would think that rather polite of me I would suspect.

Jacob Kramer wrote:


On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:01:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Jacob Kramer wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been
at a live performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about
these pieces of music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll
on what was left of his brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Do you think that there was any sound at 6 Hz?

I could only guess, but my point was that vibrations that you can't
hear but can feel can be a part of the performance. It was an outdoor
concert at the Esplanade by the way.


--

Jacob Kramer








I don't know whether they will do it this year, but it is a Boston tradition
for the Boston Pops to play the 1812 Overture from the Hatch Shell on the
Esplanade on July 4. For many years, this Holiday concert has been carried
live by PBS stations. Usually it has included an artilliery battery set up on
the banks of the Charles River for the required "instrumentation".



Bruce J. Richman

Stephen wrote:


In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:16:37 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:59:13 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Weil is obviously now totally unfamiliar with well-known orchestral
works
such as Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture. I've been at a live
performance of the 1812. Weil probably once knew about these pieces of
music. The illegal drugs must have taken their toll on what was left of

his
brain.

I went to a concert and fireworks show in Boston in 1988 when they
played the 1812 Overture with accompaniment by a couple of rounds of
artillery that shook the ground.

Artillery is nice and all, and bravo to those who thought of the two
most pieces to employ it.

Should be, "most famous pieces".

Hrm I should add that it was Independence Day, and frankly pretty
stirring.

The show that PBS broadcasts every year with the Pops? Looks like fun
for those attending.

Stephen








The Boston Pops, uder the baton of Arthur Fiedler, may be responsible for
introducing more people to classical music than any otherr musical
organization. As a young child, my first introduction to classical music was
as an attendee at some of the Boston Pops' Children Concerts that used to be
performed by the Pops in the Hatch Shell with Fiedler, of course, conducting.
Works such as Peter and the Wolf, some Sousa marches, Young Person's Guite to
the Orchestra, some Richard Hayman arrangements of Americana, and Tubby the
Tuba were common fare. By coincidence, a little later in life, I had the
pleasure, along with about 80 other classmates of performing in my college glee
club, *with* the Boston Pops conducted by Fiedler during "Bowdoin Night at the
Pops" - an annual tradition. It was quite a thrill. Another pioneering thing
that Fiedler did was to feature guest soloists from many different music genres
to perform with the Pops. Among the albums in my collection are Pops concerts
featuring artists such as Chet Atkins, Al Hirt, and Julia Childs (as soloist on
:"Tubby the Tuba" - you have to hear it to believe it - :. Other artists
featured with the Pops have featured the Siegal-Schwall Blues Band and Bela
Fleck, to name just a few.


Bruce J. Richman

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/16/2004 1:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Lionel wrote:
S888Wheel - -
vendredi 16 Avril 2004 17:18 wrote:

You remain an idiot.

S888Wheel .... contradicted at the same time, for
the same subject on RAHE and he comes here on RAO to insult and to
purge his frustration and hatred.

As the saying goes, the best revenge is living well. S888wheel has
fimly committed himself to the idea that only idiots have audio
systems with response below 20 Hz.


It looks like Arny cant count from 6 to 20. He sees nothing
inbetween.

I see nothing inbetween for sure. Let's see if you can figure out
why, S888wheel.

Asked and answered

I see no answer.

Is gooogle lying to you again?



But let's get back on topic S888wheel.

You wrote:

"The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would be
utterly useless."

Why did you have to guess whether or not a 6 Hz tone is a tone?

I wasn't guessing. It was a stylized way of alluding to the fact that while
it
is a tone it is inaudible. We generally refer to audible tones when talking
about sound.



Why do you think that reproducing a 6 Hz tone is unconditionally useless?


First of all, I never said unconditionally. The conditions of my claim have
always been with the presumption that we are talking about highend audio and
the playback of music. With that said here are the reasons I find 6hz
reproduction both useless and undesirable.
1. It is inaudible
2. There is no *music* that contains 6hz tones
3. If there is any such signal present in the source it is almost certainly:
A. inadvertant and not likely to be intended or desired by the artists or
engineers,
B. grossly distorted to the point of not being representative of the
original
event,
C. likely to wreck havoc with the equipment and the listening room (IOW it
is
likely to do lots of harm to the enjoyment of the playback if it is
perceptable
at all)
D. and, if nothing else, it is likely to be most unpleasant if it is
perceptable at all.
To some up. There is nothing to be gained from it and a lot to be lost from
it
in the attempt to reproduce music in playback.

Now it might be useful as..
1. a very powerful laxitive
2. a weapon
3. a cheap gimmic in a movie
But I have no desire to experience any of the above










How about another possible use:

5. As an adjunct to the use of $ 1000 bills.



Bruce J. Richman

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Is gooogle lying to you again?

gooogle never lies to me.

Note that the following items preceded with " " were just quoted by you
to me, s888wheel. Therefore you can held accountable for knowing them.

But let's get back on topic S888wheel.

You wrote:

"The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would
be
utterly useless."

S888wheel says in this quote that "The reproduction of a 6hz tone would be
utterly useless."

(Note that a ludicrous parenthetical statement he made has been set aside
for the moment.)

Why did you have to guess whether or not a 6 Hz tone is a tone?

I wasn't guessing. It was a stylized way of alluding to the fact that
while it
is a tone it is inaudible. We generally refer to audible tones when
talking
about sound.

I'm obviously dealing with a dummy who is completely ignorant of infrasound
and ultrasound because we frequently refer to forms of sound that are not
audible.

Infrasound is sonically interesting because it can be and often is reliably
perceptible. Natural sounds that are known to contain very strong and
therefore readily perceptible infrasonics are inherent parts of certain
musical works that have previously been named in this thread. Many musical
instruments that have fundamental tones at the low end of the audible range
are known to produce significant amounts of infrasonics. I will shortly show
that a common musical sound whose fundamental tone is well above the lower
limit of the audible range is reliably audibly mangled by the removal of
deep infrasonic sounds.

In another post I pointed out a natural recording of a kick drum that can be
downloaded from the web. In an earlier post David Weil demonstrated his
ignorance of the importance of infrasonics by claiming that removing sound
from this recording below the natural resonance of the bass instrument would
be inaudible. PCABX DBTs say otherwise. It was very easy to hear the removal
of these low frequency sounds that David Weil claimed would be inaudible.
He's also a vinylphile and tubophile, right?

To further press the point I did an PCABX DBT listening tests of that same
musical sound filtered to remove subsonic information (that is sound below
10 Hz) using a standard scientific filter. This is a more difficult
listening test than the one I did before because the cutoff-frequency was
even lower.

Nevertheless it was absolutely trivial to obtain a perfect score, being
16/16.

This 10 Hz filter approximates the inherent sound-coloring properties of an
ideally-damped tone arm.

To press this point even further I then did an PCABX DBT listening test of
that same sound filtered to remove subsonic information that is below 5 Hz,
again using a standard scientific filter. This is an even more difficult
listening test because the cutoff-frequency was far lower than before. This
filter would has very serious negative effects on the 6 Hz tone that you
said was "utterly useless"

Again, it was absolutely trivial to obtain a perfect score, being 16/16.

The point is that reproduction of musical notes whose fundamental tone is
audible, can be quite audibly changed by removing infrasonic tones.

Why do you think that reproducing a 6 Hz tone is unconditionally useless?

First of all, I never said unconditionally.

You said it exceedingly strongly. The use of the word "utterly" is noted.
Or, does "utterly useless" mean "useful some of the time" to you s888wheel?

The conditions of my claim have
always been with the presumption that we are talking about highend audio
and
the playback of music.

Since you have said that the reproduction of infrasonic sound is "utterly
useless" you can't be talking about high end audio.

With that said here are the reasons I find 6hz reproduction both useless
and undesirable.

No, you said and I quote exactly, that it is "utterly useless".

It's tough to debate with a person who denies his own words, even when he
just quoted himself saying them.

1. It is inaudible

Irrelevant since it is reliably perceptible.

2. There is no *music* that contains 6hz tones

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.

3. If there is any such signal present in the source it is almost
certainly:
A. inadvertent and not likely to be intended or desired by the artists or
engineers,

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.

B. grossly distorted to the point of not being representative of the
original
event,

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.

C. likely to wreck havoc with the equipment and the listening room (IOW
it is
likely to do lots of harm to the enjoyment of the playback if it is
perceptible
at all)

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.

D. and, if nothing else, it is likely to be most unpleasant if it is
perceptible at all.

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.

To some up. There is nothing to be gained from it and a lot to be lost
from it
in the attempt to reproduce music in playback.

A false claim, with counter-examples already provided by myself and other
posters.


Now it might be useful as..
1. a very powerful laxative
2. a weapon
3. a cheap gimmick in a movie
But I have no desire to experience any of the above

Inability to comprehend the importance of infrasonic sound to high quality
audio reproduction is noted.

I find that this is a common situation with vinylphiles since their
"reference" vinyl playback systems are technically incapable of the proper
reproduction of infrasonics. As a rule tubed power amplifiers are weaker
than solid state amplifiers when it comes to reproducing infrasonics. Every
commercial tone arm is a high pass filter tuned to a frequency that is near
the high end of the infrasonic range. I have shown that this kind of
filtering action reliably audibly mangles the true timbre of musical sounds
with bass fundamentals, even those that are well above the lower end of the
audible band.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 4/17/2004 12:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:
Are you saying that audio systems should never reproduce sounds that
are infrasonic?

No.

A 6 Hz tone is well-known to be infrasonic.

Again we run into this counting problem of yours.

This was not a problem related to counting.

19 hz, 18 hz, 17 hz, 16 hz,
15 hz, 14 hz, 13 hz, 12 hz, 11 hz, 10 hz, 9 hz, 7 hz, are also well known
to be
infra sonic.

I'm willing to stipulate that you have limited abilities to count,
s888wheel, if that is importance to you.

BTW, frequencies in this same range that are not integer numbers, are also
infrasonic. You may count as many non-integer infrasonic frequencies was
wish, s888wheel.


You said:

The reproduction of a 6hz tone (I guess it could be called a tone) would
be
utterly useless. It

Why is reproducing a 6 Hz tone always useless?

You can read my answer on a previous post.

I did and proved it totally wrong with a DBT listening test.

S888wheel, wanna play again when you save up enough money to get a good
enough stereo to hear the difference that good infrasonic reproduction
provides?

Class envy is a bitter thing to see in old-fashioned audiophiles like
s888wheel or Bruce Richman who are highly personally committed to
technically inadequate, but according to their past bragging, high-priced
audio gear.